Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
_.isEqual vs === for string comparison
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
isEqual vs ===
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/lodash@4.17.4/lodash.min.js"></script>
Script Preparation code:
window.foo = 'this is a test'; window.bar = 'this is a test';
Tests:
isEqual
_.isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)
===
window.foo === window.bar
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
isEqual
===
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/129.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 129 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=558096" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
===
3.6M/s
isEqual
2.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
===
3,572,130 Ops/sec
isEqual
2,338,245 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark. **Benchmark Purpose** The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two JavaScript operators for string comparison: `_.isEqual` from the Lodash library and the built-in `===` operator. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. `_._isEqual(window.foo, window.bar)`: This uses the `_.isEqual` function from the Lodash library. The purpose of this library is to provide a utility function for comparing values in a functional programming style. 2. `window.foo === window.bar`: This uses the built-in `===` operator for comparison. **Pros and Cons** - **Lodash's `_isEqual`:** Pros: * Provides a clear, explicit comparison method that is easy to understand and maintain. * Supports more complex data structures and types of comparisons (e.g., partial matches). * Can be useful when you want to avoid the ambiguity of `===` with object properties or arrays. Cons: * Requires an external library, which might introduce additional overhead for small scripts. * May not provide a significant performance advantage over the built-in `===` operator. - **Built-in `===` Operator:** Pros: * No additional libraries are required, making it simpler to include in most projects. * Fast and optimized for performance by the JavaScript engine. Cons: * Can be ambiguous or difficult to use correctly with certain data types (e.g., objects, arrays). * Does not provide explicit error messages if the comparison fails. **Other Considerations** - The benchmark does not consider the case where `foo` and `bar` are null or undefined. In JavaScript, using `===` on null or undefined values results in a TypeError. - When comparing strings with non-trivial regular expressions, Lodash's `_.isEqual` might be faster than the built-in `===` operator. **Library** The library being used is Lodash, which provides a utility function for comparing values in a functional programming style. The purpose of this library is to provide additional functionality and clarity when working with data structures like arrays and objects. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's typically expected for a web page running in a browser.
Related benchmarks
Lodash isEqual vs Lodash difference
Lodash.isEqual vs Lodash.isEqualWith Equality Comparison for Shallow Array of Strings.
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?